This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: __inline__ keyword in 3.0+?

On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Tom Leete wrote:

> I don't see __inline__ as just an alternate spelling. If 'inline' is a
> keyword defined by standard, why does it need a synonym? Inlined definitions
> are most commonly used in headers, and library headers should work for the
> widest possible range of options and versions. Retention of current behavior
> for __inline__ (as a distinct keyword) would make it much easier to use the
> same headers for both new and old code, as well as with g++.

__inline__ is already documented as an alternate spelling (extend.texi,
"Alternate Keywords").  The synonyms of standard keywords are needed so
that headers can work for a wide range of options and versions - note that
in the past glibc has, for example, use __const, __signed and __volatile
for compatibility with -traditional (but now no longer supports
compilation with -traditional).  It just so happens that in this case the
standard has defined different semantics for the keyword inline, and
breaking the alternate nature seems confusing.  The C language has
changed; programs need to change to accommodate it, just as C++ programs
have needed to change to accommodate changes in C++.  Use of "static
inline" is reasonably compatible.

Joseph S. Myers

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]